Althouse: "Complaining the federal government has been 'thwarted' in its attempt to enforce immigration laws..."

June 19, 2018

"Complaining the federal government has been 'thwarted' in its attempt to enforce immigration laws..."

"... Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene Monday in his feud with Chicago over so-called sanctuary city policies. Sessions wants the high court to limit to Chicago a nationwide injunction blocking him from applying new conditions to grant money as he tries to force cities to cooperate with immigration authorities. But in a 41-page application to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco also framed the case as a larger fight over the use of sweeping, 'categorical' orders from district courts. He argued the high court should 'address the propriety of enjoining a federal immigration policy everywhere at the behest of one litigant.' U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber handed down the injunction in the Chicago case last September. Sessions has also tried, without success, to persuade the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to limit the injunction to the city...."

The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

20 comments:

rhhardin said...: A convention of dueling would get rid of these judges better.; 6/19/18, 6:01 AM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Congress abdicates its authority and doesn't deal with judicial excesses and abuse of power.; 6/19/18, 6:04 AM
David Begley said...: About time! The Dems have gamed the system. No way should one liberal district court judge’s opinion bind the entire country.; 6/19/18, 6:08 AM
tim maguire said...: I look forward to reading the decision. Intuitively, one judge in one case binding a whole country is recipe for chaos. But what, exactly, are the legal arguments and considerations?; 6/19/18, 6:15 AM
Matt Sablan said...: It should matter why the injunction is being granted. "Because I don't like the President" is probably not a good enough reason.; 6/19/18, 6:19 AM
David Begley said...: Tim

Easy. Jurisdiction. A federal judge in Nebraska who decided a case on its facts has no jurisdiction to decide a different case that arose in Wisconsin.; 6/19/18, 6:22 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: The Dems are good at lawfare - and there are a lotta shameless District Court Judges who like to impose political policy by judicial fiat.; 6/19/18, 6:36 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: The Democrats have a political strategy to win back the Rust Belt's White underemployed male laborers, and the strategy's top promise is:

Advocate the establishment of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

The Democrats are counting on this promise to win back those swing voters.; 6/19/18, 6:53 AM
HoneyBee said...: District Court judges determining our national immigration policy. A recipe for chaos, a disaster reminiscent of the Civil War. Democrats --- heedless of the outcome, waging war on the duly elected federal government and the will of the people.; 6/19/18, 7:54 AM
Birkel said...: Mike Sylwester has a really excellent point, again.

Democrats act like the arguments they are having are political winners. They have to convince voters - voters that have turned to Trump, of all people - that their policies will be winners for those voters.

Name a position the Democrats are currently taking that will sway the unconvinced. I challenge anybody.; 6/19/18, 8:58 AM
chickelit said...: Immigration law is why Trump picked Sessions.
There are basically two kinds of Sessions haters who will post here. Let’s see if both archetypes show.; 6/19/18, 9:03 AM
Michael K said...: It's a nice test of wills. I think Trump is up to the test.

Cruz, apparently, is not.; 6/19/18, 9:14 AM
Wince said...: Sessions should just have undercover FBI "informants" approach these judges.; 6/19/18, 9:37 AM
readering said...: I'm against nationwide injunctions from one district but this star[ed under Obama with injunctions from Texas.; 6/19/18, 9:55 AM
Craig said...: The insertion of the word "falsely" is such a distracting signal that WaPo doesn't **want** to be looked upon as neutrally professional journalism. If what Trump is saying is wrong for some reason, that should be brought out, with factual statements, somewhere else in the story. I also don't like "voiced defiant" (or, from the headline, "Trump defiant"). **For one thing, it purports to know his state of mind.**

---

Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome.; 6/19/18, 9:56 AM
tommyesq said...: “Advocate the establishment of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.
The Democrats are counting on this promise to win back those swing voters.”

The plan may not be to convince the existing swing voters, but to drown them out via mass immigration.; 6/19/18, 10:15 AM
Birkel said...: tommyesq:
That is certainly the long-term goal. But in the short-term Democrats have to convince a majority of voters in the available (get-able) districts to vote for Democrats. As it stands now I cannot see how the messages Democrats are pushing will win those voters to achieve either their short- or long-term goals.

I want a single Democrat to explain how their current outrage-based model of politics is going to win the necessary voters.

My Senate prediction: Republicans gain at least five seats. If you set the over/under at 4.5, I take the over.; 6/19/18, 10:54 AM
Roy Lofquist said...: This is not a matter of law but rather a clash over the separation of powers. The judiciary has assumed legislative and executive prerogatives contra some very bright lines in the Constitution. The legislature and the executive have a clear duty to defend their privileges per the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders.; 6/19/18, 11:44 AM
n.n said...: Democracy dies with judicial legislation.; 6/19/18, 1:13 PM
FIDO said...: I would like an injunction that ICE agents need to be posted outside all California and New Mexico voting sites and see how the turn out is.; 6/19/18, 4:47 PM